Team:Edinburgh/Interviews (Overview)

Interviews: Overview

Biorefineries in society or society in biorefineries

Throughout the development of our biorefinery network a lot of debate was had surrounding the role biorefineries should/would/could play in society. Should a biorefinery network be implemented? Would it be accepted as a technological application? What implications could a biorefineries network have on society at large?

We thought it not sufficient to merely acknowledge the potential consequences and consider the implications that the implementation of a biorefinery would have on society but rather we felt it important to ask whether society considered biorefineries a worthwhile endeavour.

In an attempt to investigate the feasibility of implementing biorefineries and to determine the role, if any, they could play in a social context we made contact with and interviewed a number of different experts from various fields: environmentalism, business, academia, politics, and the Church. In this approach we hoped to open a discourse related to the field of Synthetic Biology in Scotland and understand any concerns, indifferences or hopes people had towards Synthetic Biology and more specifically our proposed biorefinery.

Obviously, the iGEM timescale is short and as such our study is limited in its depth. Often interesting doors would open but a shortage of time and experience meant we were unable to follow them to their end. However, our interviewee’s responses offered many interesting insights and led us to new, useful questions and ideas which we hope could be useful to future iGEM teams and synthetic biologists.

People we chose

Of course, the feasibility of any project ultimately depends upon the consent of society. As mentioned above, this year Edinburgh tried to engage with actual participants in the debate around synthetic biology and genetic modification. To that end, we conducted interviews with people representing several organisations.

Interviewees

Eric Hoffman; Friends of the Earth

‘Friends of the Earth’ is an international environmental group. Eric is based in the U.S. and has a background in sustainable agriculture policy but is increasingly involved in critical analysis of synthetic biology.

Murdo Macdonald and Glenn Walker; Church of Scotland

The Church of Scotland is a presbyterian church, and the most common religious denomination in Scotland; in the 2001 census, 42% of Scots said they belong to the Church of Scotland.

Murdo and Glenn are both involved in the Church's Society, Religion and Technology Project (SRTP). Murdo trained as a molecular biologist and Glenn as a chemical pharmacologist.

Nicolas Peyret; Scottish Enterprise

Scottish Enterprise works with the Scottish government to encourage economic development in Scotland. Nicolas is a technology and market analyst for Scottish Enterprise, focusing on the life sciences.

Graeme Reid; University of Edinburgh

Instruction of biology students at the University of Edinburgh is the responsibility of the Biology Teaching Organisation (BTO). Graeme Reid trained as a biochemist. He is now Director of the BTO.

Patrick Harvie MSP; Scottish Green Party

The Scottish Green Party has 2 seats in the Scottish Parliament (out of 129 total). Its policies are focused on the environment and social justice.

Patrick Harvie is a Member of the Scottish Parliament (an MSP) for the Glasgow region, and co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party. He has been part of the parliament's Science and Technology Cross-Party Group.

Armin Grunwald; Office for Technological Assessment

Armin Grunwald is the Director of the Buro fur Technokfolgen-Abschatzung (Office for Technological Assessment) and of KIT's Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis. He is also a technological philosopher and ethicist.

The questions

The questions were partially prepared and partially a response to what was said during the interviews.

In preparation for the interviews, we consulted continuously with our two human practice supervisors (both sociologists working in the field of Synthetic Biology) who helped us to develop our questions. At all times we attempted to frame our prepared questions as openly as possible, not leading the interviewee. This had an interesting effect on the varying length and content of each interview.

That said, we did attempt to maintain consistency by creating an ad hoc framework in which we could position our questions. Generally, we opened by asking about the interviewee themselves after which we asked broad questions relating to Synthetic Biology and their understanding and opinion of it. Afterwards, a general introduction and explanation of our project and of the concept of biorefineries was given and an immediate reaction was asked. We had a number of questions related to the interviewee’s expertise and their stance on our hypothetical biorefinery which were asked next and we ended by once again asking broad questions related to sustainability. We also asked if they had any advice they would like to offer to future synthetic biologists. The general format used for all the interviews; broad, specific, broad.

It was our hope that by opening the interview with broad questions related to synthetic biology the interviewee would begin to think about their own understanding and perception of Synthetic Biology (which is what we were interested in) and would continue to answer the remainder of the questions(those specific and important questions) through this understanding.

Some interviews were conducted in person, some over Skype and others via e-mail. In all instances we attempted to keep the questions consistent, however, interviews that were conducted over Skype or in person obviously held a margin of flexibility.